Richard Evans v. K. Siebel, et al
| K. SIEBEL, S. SHERMAN, S. GARCIA, KESTASON, J. HARRISON, V. BRUNETTI, D. DRONET, M. JOHNSON, T. CISNORES and P. CARTER |
| RICHARD A. EVANS |
| 19-17574 |
| December 26, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): Appellants request for an extension of time to pay the filing and docketing fees for this appeal or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (Docket Entry No. [ # 3 ]). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the district court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. Appellants motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 3) is referred to the merits panel. The briefing schedule is stayed pending further order of the court. The Clerk will send appellant a Form 4. [11597235] (JMR) [Entered: 02/13/2020 04:36 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Richard A. Evans motion for extension of time, motion to take judicial notice. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/02/2020. [11592199] (QDL) [Entered: 02/10/2020 04:31 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): On September 11, 2019, the district court entered judgment in this case. Appellant did not file a notice of appeal within the 30-day jurisdictional time period, nor did he timely file one of the motions that could have tolled the time within which to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (tolling motion must be filed within 28 days from entry of judgment); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1986) (untimely motion does not suspend time to appeal). Appellant did file a motion for reconsideration, dated November 4, 2019 and filed in the district court on November 8, 2019. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration on November 21, 2019. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, dated December 8, 2019, and filed in the district court on December 16, 2019. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the judgment entered on September 11, 2019, the scope of this appeal is limited to review of the November 21, 2019 order denying the motion for reconsideration. A review of this courts docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the district court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk shall serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. The previously established briefing schedule remains in effect. Filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will automatically stay the briefing schedule. (Pro Se) [11569469] (CKP) [Entered: 01/22/2020 08:56 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Richard A. Evans opening brief due 02/14/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11544139] (JPD) [Entered: 12/26/2019 10:58 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
